Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (politician)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Per policy/guidelines and the discussion below I believe "delete" was the only valid close for this discussion. The original concerns of the nominator were mooted once the article was sourced, so ultimately this was a discussion about notability. Those arguing in favor of deletion cite WP:POLITICIAN and the fact that the article subject fails the criteria there, a point not really refuted by anyone supporting keeping. Those on the keep side argue that Jones might well win the election and if not we can do an AfD again later, but that is simply not a valid argument per WP:CRYSTAL. Also on the keep side, victor falk argued that Jones has "received significant press coverage" (basically saying he is a local politician but still passes WP:GNG), however this was clearly not the consensus view. Given existing policies about notability in general and politicians specifically the arguments for deletion have to prevail here.

Turning this into a redirect was also very much a possibility, but there simply was not consensus for that option, and while it strikes me personally as a good idea I cannot ignore the stronger (and quite valid) support for outright deletion. Even after deletion there is nothing wrong with creating a redirect, though the history will be lost. If anyone is interested in having the article userfied I am happy to do that (just drop me a note on my talk page), and there would be no prejudice against moving it back into article space if enough sources came out such that Jones passed the general notability guideline, or (obviously) if he is elected.

Finally I'll point out that there seems to be a consensus that we need a general way to handle these "candidate" articles as we approach a big UK general election in a few months (many seem to recognize that, inevitably, more will be created). My close and rationale here are quite similar to the one presented in Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings, and perhaps these will be worth referring to during future discussions. Martin451 commented about setting a precedent by just turning these articles into redirects to pages like Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency), and that might be the way to go in the future even if it's not how this AfD ended. It would have the advantage of: A) Preserving edit histories; B) Avoiding running basically the same AfD over and over (a newly-created article would simply be redirected). DGG argues that WP:POLITICIAN is out of step with the current media environment and perhaps with a developing consensus among Wikipedians, which is probably a point worth pursuing on the policy talk page. I would enjoin all participants here (and other editors interested in this topic) to come to some kind of consensus on how to handle these sort of articles going forward, as ideally we would be able to avoid lengthy AfDs like this as the UK, Australian, and U.S. electoral seasons heat up (if not others as well). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Graham Jones (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced BLP. Deprodded with an odd edit summary, and then reverted when readded. This needs to be deleted. Unit Anode  03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Redirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN, so we need to examine for significant coverage in secondary sources. Gnewsing is made difficult by the fact that Graham Jones is a rather common name, but I took a bit of a look and didn't find anything that wasn't incidental to his various political roles, and hence I conclude that until and unless significant coverage appears, fails WP:GNG as well. Ray  Talk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Change to permit redirect, as I've read the discussion below. I don't think, given the nature of parliamentary elections in the UK (where vote is much more on lines of party than on the merits of the individual candidate) that a major-party candidate is necessarily notable, but a redirect would serve the purpose well, while letting us preserve material in case he's elected. Ray  Talk 22:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As above, the only coverage I could find was incidental. Here the clear failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN should outweigh any marginal case there is for WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FIX or DELETE - No other outcome is compatible with policy, closing admin is instructed to disregard any keeps that do not assert the article has been properly sourced. Once sourced, consider the notability. Until then it is not acceptable to have this article here. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep He is standing at the next general election, there is plenty of coverage.Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Provide some. Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "Graham Jones is the Labour Party candidate for the Parliamentary constituency of Hyndburn at the 2010 UK General Election" supported by a primary source doesn't pass any of our BIO thresholds.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A newspaper is a secondary source. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Further, I think right now any interested parties need to walk the history. Eastmain and I are editing concurrently and I think inadvertantly at cross purposes... apologies for that. Unsourced statements need to be removed. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, but… Jones currently fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local council members are not notable, nor are candidates for office. So, we look to WP:GNG. There's an article on his candidacy. He's mentioned in a number of articles, but I haven't seen anything that qualifies as significant coverage. For example, one article had about two paragraphs with his opinion on an issue affecting the local council. Accordingly, I don't see where he passes GNG; he is not currently notable. That said, while notability is not temporary, the lack of reliable sources could be. If he is written about extensively in the course of the election, he could then qualify as notability. Of course, if he wins the election, he automatically qualifies under WP:POLITICIAN. However, I don't see anything that shows that he's notable yet. —C.Fred (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also see talk page. I think it's too much of a tangent for the main thread, but please see my comments about what happens to this AfD results after 3 June. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- As Labour PPC in a Labour-held seat, there is a significant chance that he will be elected. If he thus becomes an MP, he will be notable.  This is currently a horrid article, but that is a reason to improve, not delete.  The time for deletion will be if he fails to get elected.  I think we have to put up with biographies of PPCs until the election is over (or their formal nomination fails).  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the issue I wrestled with. There's a reasonable chance that he will be elected (automatic notability), but that's future possibility and not current reality. Is the better path to have a weak article in the interim or no article at all? Frankly, I would not object to this discussion ending with a no consensus result, so that (pardon the Canadian political reference) we can prorogue this discussion until after the election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment After this got nailed the other day - about a certain election winner - I suggest we ought to be reluctant about including candidates merely because they are likely to win. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The fact that he may be notable in the future is irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. Being a PPC does not, of itself, provide notability.  If he is elected, then an article should be created. Warofdreams talk 00:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major party candidates for national office should be considered notable, to end nominations like this, if the nomination can be shown to be real.  In the last year or so, with the growth of google news,  almost all of them have turned out to have good secondary sources. Until we have that agreement,  the sources need to be looked for, but this should be done first, before nominating.    DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you aregue that all major party candidates are notable, and then that those major party candidates with good secondary sources are notable, and then that you've got no proof such sources exist. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To expand more fully; Major party candidates are not considered notable. Full stop, end of discussion. A keep vote that is against policy and questions the actions taken by the nominator (without any evidence to suggest the nominator did not look for sourcing, or any attempt to provide such sourcing) is a waste of bytes. Ironholds (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * right, I am aware of the guideline, and I am arguing that the guideline is obsolete. We can almost always find sources for anyone running for a national level office who has won a major party primary in the US, and equivalent in other countries with a basically 2 party system. I have never encountered an election where there is not local newspaper coverage. All coverage before the election will include both party's candidates.  What has made it obsolete is the extension of coverage in G Books and G News, but it was always the case that if they are not online, they will be in print.(and that one article was deleted unrealistically does not prove that another one should be also) I'm not sure I expect this argument to be accepted now, but if not,  i think it will be in another year.      DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument is that the guideline is obsolete (which is irrelevant in terms of a single AfD) and that there should be enough sources to pass WP:BIO. Firstly, if there are enough sources to pass WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN is not applied. Secondly, you have made no effort to demonstrate that there are such sources, while simultaneously telling the nominator off for not looking when you've got no proof that he hasn't! Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines should not be ignored on the basis of a unilateral assertion that they are obsolete. If you think WP:POLITICIAN should be scrapped, make a policy change proposal and see if you can get consensus to delete it; but until that has happened it can still be cited and applied. (Side-note: we really should have that policy debate soon, or we shall be repeating this discussion several hundred times in the next few months). JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it was done before, but it was done after, likely multiple times. I did a search for sources before I made my comment yesterday. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the leader of a Borough Council, is that notable? "The borough council’s Labour Leader Graham Jones" Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be an "elected local official", so no. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What if he can blow smoke through his ears? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that's WP:BLP1E, surely :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Why are we arguing about this? Everyone knows that a major party candidate for a parliamentary seat is going to have substantial press coverage, and it's trivial to look up such sources when the election is currently in the news. Everyking (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry? "The guideline allows for significant coverage, and since something he's a minor cog in is happening, that coverage must exist, but I'm not going to look?". Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two news articles, in which he is the primary subject, already given in the article. Are you saying they don't count? Everyking (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One covers his appointment; that's hardly enough to count as "significant". Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're disqualifying a source because it "covers his appointment"? Tell you what&mdash;I'll look around and find some more sources, but only on condition you tell me in advance what number will be sufficient to get you to change your vote to keep. Everyking (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency), or if the seat itself becomes notable in this election, then redirect to the article about this election. Having an AfD for each and every PPC in the up-coming general election will be a huge amount of work, and think we need to set a precedent to redirect rather than go through up to 2000 AfDs in the run up to the election. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency) has a list of the candidates and a link to the article on the (UK-wide) election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (voted above) It seems to me that it is going to be dififcult to resist having PPC biographies within six months of an election, but we should have a mass cull of articles on unsuccessful candidates as soon as the election is over. I would suggest a revision to WP:POLITICIAN to the effect that candidates for natioanl legislatures, elected presidency and smiliar major offices for major parties should be regarded as notable until the election has taken place, when notability must be reconsidered.  I would suggest that a major party should be one with at least five existing represnetatives in the preceding legislature.  How far down this should extend is debatable: possibly to US State legislatures and Austrialian provinces, with the Scottish Parliament, and Welsh and NI Assemblies, but not UK county and distriuct councils.  However perhaps this discussion needs to be continued at WP:POLITICIAN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is our policy that notability is permanent. You can't merit inclusion before the election but not afterward. Everyking (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep He also is the opposition leader in Hyndburn; that makes him fulfil wp:politician #2 to the tee: Major local political figures |hyndburn%29+&btnG=Search+Archives&num=100&hl=en&ned=us&scoring=a who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. ¨¨ victor  falk  01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds does any of that qualify him for a speedy keep? A standard keep, yes, but it doesn't invalidate anything about the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, the requirement is for significant coverage about the subject, not just for his name to be mentioned in every article about a political issue in Hyndburn. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And lets not ignore that to describe Hyndburn as a major metropolitan city is to give it a compliment it doesn't deserve. Take a look at the article on Hyndburn, Victor Falk, see if you think it qualifies. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As the article stands, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN.  Possibility of future notability is not enough for inclusion.  Best to stick with the policy guidelines on this one.  If there are other reasons for notability (other achievements as a politician or social activist), then they should be reflected in the article, but they're not there now and they don't seem so easy to find! Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. I do not see notability apart from his candidacy. Creating hundreds of candidate articles before the election and deleting the unsuccessful ones after it, as suggested above, does not seem to me a sensible plan. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article now is a bit excessive, its got a couple of citations and a couple of externals and the coverage is only going to grow exponentially, if you delete it now, it will definitely get re created when the hullabaloo and the reporting kicks off for the election, even if he loses he will be notable for a couple of months, why delete an article with a degree of notability that people are going to be coming looking for, if he wins all good, we will have our article and if he loses we can delete it in June, if he wins, we won't have an article and about a hundred people will suddenly require an article, if we are a bit lax with their notability at the moment then the articles will be there ready and waiting, no worries really. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While consensus can change, notability is permanent. We can't make the judgement now that the candidate is notable and then consider him not notable if he loses the election. Its contrary to the concept of notability and turns wikipedia into a campaign portal. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, we are just allowing a little common sense, there will be so much coverage soon that not having an article will be the poorer position, the not news issue is a bit dated as far as I have seen reflected in article creation on wikipeadia over the last year, we can not be a portal when massive coverage will be at every click of a mouse and an every newspaper across the UK. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you run that last bit past me again? I couldn't understand it. You're making the assumption that he wins; we are not a crystal ball. If he wins, he can have an article. Arguing "we better have an article now, because we'll need one in three months, and anyway it doesn't matter that there's insufficient sourcing because there will be in 3 months" is something straight out of "AfD arguments to avoid". Ironholds (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be a bit clearer, I am saying keep, if he wins he will be notable, if he loses then we can AFD him then, right now he is semi notable and rising. I am just throwing in my opinion with what I see as a bit of common sense, and looking outside of the box a bit, I have also added a comment and another citation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "If he wins, he'll be notable" is not an acceptable argument for keeping an article. It is perhaps an argument for deletion and userification, but not for keeping. Unit  Anode  02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Major party candidate who is notable enough now. If he loses the election the article can be revisited (although there will be lots more coverage by then...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how he is notable now, don't just state it. He doesn't currently satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, and we're not a crystal ball. Unit  Anode  03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From the guideline page ..Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be closed
There's clearly consensus to delete the article as of now. I'd also suggest userifying it for Off2riorob, as he seems genuinely interested in the content, and it could be moved into the mainspace if the guy DOES win and become notable. Unit Anode  04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.